Best Military in the world?

exactly. No one has even mentioned SBS yet. (it is SBS right? Special Boat Service as opposed to Special Air Service?). Anyway, to my knowledge SBS and SAS activites are fully documented and unclassfied. Tehy are good but dont even hold a candle to COD SFODD SEALs and CIA SAD.
 
dont even get me started on snipers. If you took the average sniper from each country the US would probably lose. But we have more elite snipers than you guys have total snipers so it wouldnt matter. You guys have no idea what SEAL, SFG, SFOD, and MEU/MFR snipers are capable. In fact, neither do i! You know why? cuz you cant see them! Every NATO countries snipers training is based off our sniper training. Not to mention we have superior spotting skills, concealment skills, and windage/elevation judgement. We have guns that are now computer assisted to measure how many clicks left/right up/down to adjust the scope. We can snipe up to 3000 meters away now. At that distance you actually have to factor in both the earth's curve, and its rotation. No other country in the world has that range yet. Do you know why? Because they dont even have the guns to do so. We have m24s, the new m21s with the SAGE kit, m82s, etc.
 
I know some people that would beg to differ with that...such as the Marine Corps. The Air Force soaks up a huge majority of US defense spending and wastes it on golf courses and bureaucracy. The Marines don't get nearly the funding they deserve.

That said, I stand by my statement that the US Department of the Navy could defeat almost any military on earth without any other support.

 
yes they dont get the funding they deserve but they get it much better than regular army guys. some army guys don't even have body armor yet and the others are running around with IBAs and shit i can buy off ebay. Marines at the least get releasable MOLLE vests, over PACA soft armors, nice goggles, cool knives, knee pads, and sweet belts. Army guys get shit.

I completely 100% agree with your second statement. You're including Marine corps in the USDN? either way it stands true.
 
Bureaucracy, yes. This is the US gov.t we're talking about. But the Air Force has a lot more than the planes we know about that they are spending money on. Other than com sats the other branches use, space is the AF's territory. My dad is working on an experimental sat for the AF (I think it's technically for DARPA, but AF is handling it) worth hundreds of millions. When/if they start making operation sats it will be worth billions. And that's just one satellite.
 
I have to agree with Allen here, the M-16/M-4 variants are all outdated weapons. Their attachments may be new, but the weapon itself is not. The U.S. Marines and Army both need to bring in a newer standard infantry rifle. Theres a reason why the special forces don't use the M-16/M-4 and the MP5 anymore. Heckler and Koch (sp), Sig Firearms, and FN Herstal are all making more advanced firearms.
 
no they arent. The m16/m4 system is better than ever. CQBRS and mk18s with RIS/RAS and butt loads of accessories are still the way to go. There are some onepiece uppers for them now too. they kick ass. The m4 is so much more customizable than the m8. The m7 is a piece of shit and will never get implemented. Ppl think the m8 is cool cuz it can be CQB, sniper, and mid range but so can m4s...... Most seals carry a single lower, and a 10.5" barrel along with a 16" barrel that automatically converts it into a dmr.

heckler and koch are all right. They kind of failed the mk23 program for the new .45 acps. mp5s are old. idk theyre all right. much ado about notihng in my opinion.

but long story short, the new gen m4s are def top of the line 5.56x.223 wise.
 
all special forces still use the m-4 and mainly the m4. they use the new cqbr 10.5" barrels and mk18s. improvements included improved gas system with larger, cleaner gas ports, shorter barrel but with a more powerful gas block, etc.

Sig arms already makes the SEAL pistol (p226) but im a fan of the tried and true colt .45. The Marine Expiditionary Unit and Force recon have their own version in the MARSOC and MEUSOC etc. LA Swat uses a Kimber Custom too (beefed up colt .45). All delta guys still use colt .45s. The .45 round is still better than 9mm as long as its reliable. I think interchangibility of mags is the most important thing right now. Theres no real problem in reliability in americas weapons and theres really no need to update any of them.
 
oh and FN herstal (fabrique nationale?) sucks penis. The only good gun theyve ever made is the m249. other than that they make jack shit. They made the FAMAS right? is the p90 made by them? all ugly. oh and the dudes that guard the white house use p90s apparently. just a fun fact.
 
The F-22 has been operational for 2 years and the JSF is not the F-35A. JSF was a program to develop a specialized fighter for different missions (the A, B, and C). Each one is a totally different plane. But whatever, I've only trained in the simulator. I guess I might know something about the plane.
 
That would be difficult since the Air Force supplies thier intel...and 99% of all military information. Space is essential to warfare now, and the Air Force is the supplier of that capability. That's why the budget is huge. Planes and satellites cost more than guns.
 
well no one really uses a plain m-16 anymore when they are deployed to iraq. The existing m16s are SAM-R's if im correct and only the USMC getsem right?
 
yea but just think about 10 years ago when there wasn't of that. Most of our enemies militaries dont have air supports and the such so we would still be able to kick ass with only the USN. NSWF has its own UAVs if im correct so im sure theyd be able to collect intel the old fashioned way and still own. They have AWACs and other planes too. Its not like they would suck against china or russia without military satellite help.
 
I;m going with the empire, once they fix that death star they'll be unstoppable.Just as long as those damn rebels are stopped
 
We have been using this stuff for longer than 10 years...and AWACs aren't spy planes. It's more like a command and control center for combat operations. The Navy isn't on the same level as the Air Force when it comes to air superiority. They have incredible pilots (I don't think either service has the better), but not the same technology.
 
Yes, the F-22 is operational. But, as I said, it has not seen combat. The thing has never deployed. The closest it's come to action is intercepting Bears over Alaska.

And the F-35 is the Joint Strike Fighter - A, B, and C. The purpose of the JSF program is pretty well explained by the name - to develop a single strike fighter for all three branches. They're not totally different planes; each one is the same airframe, except that the B has STOVL capability and the C has beefed up landing gear and a tailhook for carrier use. And it's looking more and more like that program is gonna fall apart anyway. The AF only wants more F-22s, the Navy is looking at buying Block II Super Hornets, and the Marines never get the programs they need (and they desperately need the JSF).

 
Agreed that the Marines needs a new plane, but really since the military is becoming so much more integrated it might not be necessary anymore.
 
my massive dick is the best army in the world.

could crush all those mofos from US, Russia, China and whatever other country you think has firepower

they've obviously never seen me go off.
 
MARSOC anybody? not to mention anyone that is citing Iraq as an example of what the U.S. military is not capable is not thinking in terms of a real war. We could go through and clear the middle east out in minutes through total warfare but choose not to. The United States spends more money on its military than the rest of the G-8 countries combined. Dogs from hell.
 
The US would kick ass anyday in a full on war. However, that's only if it's WWIII and all stops have been pulled. They cannot do shit against guerilla tactics, as demonstrated in Iraq and Afganistan. They're military is not designed for that kind of long term, small scale combat.

I don't know and care enough about guns, planes, military and what not to tell or argue what military could, but the US is definately not a candidate.

As said before, the US is by far the strongest in sheer power (technology, support etc.) but wouldn't be able to do jack shit without all their fancy equipment, whether it be not being able to use them to their full potential, or losing them completely. I think this is the biggest flaw in the United States Military, that they don't put enough effort into individual superiority, but rather on superiority as a whole/or their equipment.

I still think Canadians are the best snipers in the world, and it might be a biased opinion because I am Canadian but I think we still hold the record for the longest distance kill?
 
Longest documented kill, i bet there have been longer but the sniper had to get on with sniping other people and counldnt walk out into the middle of the battlefield to mesure it.
 
I don't know...we went against a Canadian team during training this summer and they pretty much got pwned.
 
Skidubaiguy do you know anything about armies in the first place? becasue you seem pretty uninformed...

let's see right now through the coalition invasion of iraq....4147 american soldiers have been killed, most of them ahve been given basic training and are shipped off ot iraq, fatalities include but are not limited to soldiers picking up random, suspicious objects off of the road to taking suspicious/anti-coalition posters down off of walls, basic basic basic mistakes that lead to heavy casualties becasue of stupidness

the british have lost about 23 times less soldiers then the USA...that's only 176, and they are top class military i will give them that, brilliant to say the least.

Now the australians, my own home country have had around 1382 times less soldiers killed then the americans in iraq...this is 2 or 3 soldiers, shows how well they may be trained compared to some others, eh?

although then again america did send in over 200,000 men and women, England did send in around 45000 and Australia did send only around 2000...that's 2% of the american forces killed so far, 0.3 - 0.4% of the british killed so far and around 0.15% of the australian contingent....so even in percentages the americans seem to be doing the worst...even with the "better" technology and such...wait better technology...was that what i said???

Is it not true that a Brisbane based company called Metal Storm (that's in Queensland, Australia) created a weapon capable of firing 1 million bullets per second??? wait that is true...pretty darn facny i do think since this weapon can also be applied wiht mortars and grenades....i'm sure the americans have something like taht!...oh wait they don't...

And btw...who said Australians were cowards??? we were on the front line in WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq...was it the americans who were the cowards that did not join in WW1 until 3 years after it had started...or WW2 until 2 years after it ahd started...

we can't forget vietnam either, everyone was on teh frontline in that one...but wait!!! The vietcong one that one...so des this mean they are the greatest army in the world? It's your choice...but personally read more about history instead of stating sensless nonesense becasue you heard it on the news.

As John Mayer said "And when you trust your television

What you get is what you got

Cause when they own the information, oh

They can bend it all they want"

Armies change throughout history, i would not doubt that oneday china may have the wrolds greatest army, tehy have the manpower and the resources to manufacture there artillery and weapons...so why not?

Now i'm not trying to sound all uppity and shiet but get your facts straight first, there's more to an army then jsut weapons and manpower, it's strategy and courage as well...

anyway that's my 2 cents
 
you are an absolute idiot if you actually think australia has a better military than america. congrats you posted just as much as me but you have demonstrated a very flawed knowledge of anything in regards to military history.

we didnt join either of the world wars due to the monroe doctrine and the fact that we had no intrests in doing so.

also your gun is the single stupidest waste of ammunition ever. theres a reason why we dont have a gun that fires 1 million rounds per minute. it has so much recoil you cant even mount it to a armored hummer or even a tank! it has so much recoil a human cannot fire it. more over, the fact that 1 million super hot shell casings would be ejected into your vehicle would create a fire hazard. And how the fuck would you reload it?

We have mounted automatic grenade launchers... Mk2 and mortars.

dont talk about strategy and courage cuz you have no idea what youre talking about. you know jack shit about military history if you cite examples of guerrila tactics and isolationism as support for tactical inferiority and poor courage, respectively.

 
I believe that what you have just displayed is called...ignorance. Have you ever thought that maybe the US has lost so many more because there are so many more of them there? I understand your logic a bit, but if you have 200,000 men, and are doing the majority of the patrols, fighting, etc etc, you are going to lose more guys.

And i'm sure the Americans could develop a machine gun that fires a million rounds a minute, but you know why they don't? Its downright impractical! No man could fire it, and it would cost a ton to build the ammo for it. It can take 1 round to disable a man, why do you need to put 225,000 in him?

Next up, the US did not join World War I or II because of their policy, called isolationism. Basically, they didn't want to get mixed up in someone else's shit and gain enemies out of it. I forgot though how every year on June 6th, the French celebrate the glorious brave Australians who stormed the beaches. Not saying the aussies didn't do anything, but they certainly didn't have the same impact as the US.

I do however agree with your last statement, armies do change all the time, and that China will be or is already to be considered a major military power.
 
hmmmm yeah the swiss are beasts, i know a guy who is a sniper for them, dont think hes ever shot under a 99 in target practice

canadas army though, oh we rule...

33bzh8o.jpg
 
I think you owe everyone an apology for that comment, disagreeing over the size of militarys all over the world is one thing, but to mock men and women who died for the causes that you and i beleive because of preventable accident is unacceptable... please think before you speak that was extremely rude
 
hahaha. yea jeez. the 5.56 is fine right now i think. it penetrates well, and out of the new short barreled m4s they cause significant damage. We should start employing more 7.62 weapons though. Only really the seals use them in the mk11 mod 0 (sr-25), the mk14 (m14 EBR), and the mk 43( m60 e4).

i mean our line of 5.56 weapons isnt shabby...

mk18 (10.5" m4 a1 lower)

CQBR (10.5" m4 a2 lower)

mk16 (scar)

and of course the SAW, 249, mk48 whatever you wanna call it.
 
ive seen how they train every soldier in israel on tv and its crazy, they all are trained in martial arts and shit, by the way every male in isreal that turns 18 has to be in the army for 2 years, that would blow
 
yea yea i know .556 is standard NATO round and everything, i just think some m4s should be issued with the .65 round in our army.

the beowulf .50 caliber is also quite nice.. fired from an m4, of course.
i know it wont happen overnight (both rounds have been in existence for at least a year or two), but at least acknowledge their superiority to the .556 round in most cases of urban combat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top